Towards a Physiological Scale of Vocal Fold Agent-Based Models of Surgical Injury and Repair: Sensitivity Analysis, Calibration and Verification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agent based models (ABM) were developed to numerically simulate the biological response to surgical vocal fold injury and repair at the physiological level. This study aimed to improve the representation of existing ABM through a combination of empirical and computational experiments. Empirical data of vocal fold cell populations including neutrophils, macrophages and fibroblasts were obtained using flow cytometry up to four weeks following surgical injury. Random Forests were used as a sensitivity analysis method to identify model parameters that were most influential to ABM outputs. Statistical Parameter Optimization Tool for Python was used to calibrate those parameter values to match the ABM-simulation data with the corresponding empirical data from Day 1 to Day 5 following surgery. Model performance was evaluated by verifying if the empirical data fell within the 95% confidence intervals of ABM outputs of cell quantities at Day 7, Week 2 and Week 4. For Day 7, all empirical data were within the ABM output ranges. The trends of ABM-simulated cell populations were also qualitatively comparable to those of the empirical data beyond Day 7. Exact values, however, fell outside of the 95% statistical confidence intervals. Parameters related to fibroblast proliferation were indicative to the ABM-simulation of fibroblast dynamics in final stages of wound healing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".